GM: “At least” 20 New EVs To Debut In Next 5 Years, Two in Next 18 Months

Chevrolet Bolt EV is just the start of more than 20 all-electric offerings over the next 5 years for GM

As the current auto show season approached, there had been some hints that a Chevrolet Bolt EV-based offering would debut, specifically an all electric/compact Buick EV, but GM has now officially stated there will be a lot more EVs coming soon.

Times are changing, and apparently changing fast at GM

Specifically that GM will offer two new all-electric vehicles “based off learnings from the Chevrolet Bolt EV” in the “next 18 months”, and that “at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023”.

Now to be clear, because we have heard a lot of automakers talk about “electrifying” their lineups of late (Honda, VW, BMW, Jaguar, Volvo, etc), which is a clever way of lumping hybrids (and sometimes plug-in hybrids) with all-electric cars into press releases…GM isn’t saying that, they are clearly saying “all-electric vehicles”. That’s a lot of EVs indeed!

We should note that GM currently has a massive push underway in China to conform to some pretty strict (and almost immediate) electric vehicle sales thresholds, so one should probably several of these coming 20+ all-electric vehicles will be offering in China only.

We assume a heck of a lot more windmills (known for following EVs wherever they go in the wild) will be photographed in GM’s press material over the next 5 years

Full GM press release:

DETROIT — General Motors announced today how it is executing on a major element of its vision of a world with zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion, recently announced by GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra.

In the next 18 months, GM will introduce two new all-electric vehicles based off learnings from the Chevrolet Bolt EV. They will be the first of at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023.

Given customers’ various needs, getting to a zero emissions future will require more than just battery electric technology. It will require a two-pronged approach to electrification — battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric depending on the unique requirements.

GM also introduced SURUS — the Silent Utility Rover Universal Superstructure — a fuel cell powered, four-wheel steer concept vehicle on a heavy-duty truck frame that’s driven by two electric motors. With its capability and flexible architecture, SURUS could be used as a delivery vehicle, truck or even an ambulance — all emissions free.

“Since they do not cooperate on these issues, the government should mandate all of the automotive manufacturers, including Tesla, to fund a supercharger network that is compatible with all EV’s.

Telsa building out their own network was necessary to kickstart the EV revolution. Now that that is done, it’s time to focus on joint efforts and not each company re-inventing the wheel.

”

I agree. But in the menatime, until the government sees the greater good , they could build at least some CCS chargers (it would meake the Bolt so much more appealing)opened (for a fee) to other CCS compliant car-makers. Why not?
The reason is they do not want to make EVs too appealing because they have a Massive investment in ICE and they’ve trying to milk that tech for as long as possible.

Legacy auto makers are not paying to build EV charging networks like Tesla’s because their PEV sales are 6% or less of their total sales, as compared to 100% of Tesla’s. Legacy auto makers aren’t going to pay that kind of money, or spend that much time and effort on planning and building and maintenance, to support such a small percentage of their cars. They may also have other reasons, but that alone is more than sufficient.

Furthermore, as Abc123 already said, it’s ridiculous to expect each individual auto maker to build out its own charging network.

It is time — past time — for EV makers to come together and agree on one true charging standard, and one with a clear path to the future, allowing charging at higher and higher kilowatt ratings. And if they don’t, then governments need to step in and mandate them.

It’s well past time to end the Tower of Babel approach to EV charging, lacking any true standard; a wasteful approach, one which dissipates the resources put into building charging stations.

Bringing up a Tesla fan boi is different from Tesla. But Tesla fan boi don’t get that small difference. Once they see the word “Tesla”, their heads started to explode and their eyes all started rolling…

“AND, the most juiciest tidbit, IMO, was the mention of a Corvette/Camaro variant!”

When I picked up my Bolt, the salesman seemed excited to tell me that, while the next Corvette (C8) will be gas-powered, the following one will definitely be all-electric. That likely pushes it past 2023, so maybe the Camaro will go first.

Word is that GM will build a hybrid variant of the mid-engined Corvette by 2020. And get this: the Porsche 918 Spyder is being used as the benchmark design. Yes, it will feature all wheel drive with the front powered by electric motor. All those years of experience engineering the Volt are about to pay off with flagship hybrids that will blow away old-school gearheads.

Don’t ask me how I know this…suffice to say I grew up in a “gm family” with members who worked at both GM tech center and GM proving grounds.

GM was already on the bandwagon, if not the actual bandwagon. It wouldn’t surprise me if a number of these cars were built specifically for China and India.

It wouldn’t surprise me if they designed electrification into all their new platforms, and were just waiting for the market to mature for their release so they don’t end up with hackjobs to get the electrification into their vehicles.

I think a big telling story is how many EVs sold last month in the US, when gas prices skyrocketed with the hurricanes.

No surprise there, really. Anyone who has bought an EV from GM can tell these are taken very seriously by the company.

We already knew that Buick is most likely next. And it makes sense to try to get at least one of these new models into production next year to take advantage of the unlimited rebate period.

The XT4 with a PHEV variant is also possibly coming next year. Since the president of Cadillac stated: ““a new compact crossover called XT4 will debut in 2018 in the US and subsequently in Europe.” Although the PHEV model may not be there at launch.

So since that one is not an “all-electric” vehicle, that means most likely 3 EV offerings in the next 2 years – 1 PHEV and 2 BEVs.

Toyota announced quite awhile ago that their entire line of passenger vehicles would be offerings as hybrids. RAV4 got the upgrade last year. Camry & C-HR are just getting it now. Corolla and a variety of non-US models are hybrids elsewhere as well. Prime is the first of the plug-in offerings. There’s an EV on the way, along with the effort to deliver solid-state batteries. What else is there to announce?

Hybrids don’t count as EVs. They’re primarily ICE vehicles. Toyota did great bringing hybrids to market. Then they lost their way when it came time to develop PHEVs and EVs 10 years ago. They still haven’t caught up.

“There’s an EV on the way, along with the effort to deliver solid-state batteries.”

Toyota is the BlackBerry of EV makers. The Prius was certainly a successful marketing of a non-plug-in HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle), but Toyota hasn’t significantly advanced its EV tech in well over a decade. Even the first generation Prius Plug-in was no better than what was already offered as a 3rd party modification of the non-plug-in Prius.

Also, you clearly don’t understand that Toyota touting solid state batteries, based on nothing but the claims of just one more in a sea of high tech battery startups, is nothing but an embarrassment to Toyota. EEStor or Envia, anyone? How about DBM’s Kolibri battery? Claims from high tech battery startups are almost universally B.S.

Just like BlackBerry when Apple released the iPhone, Toyota’s response to Tesla has been weak and tardy. If Toyota doesn’t change its corporate attitude towards EVs soon, it’s going to wind up like BlackBerry, with at best a shrunken, tiny market share.

John1701a you are indeed right about the Prius Prime – the most popular EV model out right now, and what with modern heat-pump technology borrowed from Mitsubishi that greatly advanced cold-weather performance in houses – now brings the same high performance to electrified cars where the cost of electricity is too extremely high to be wasted merely running a resistance heater.

I’ll be the first to admit I didn’t think the Prius Prime used a heat pump – I thought they just ran the engine whenever heat was needed, as is effectively the case in my ELR – the ELR has resistance heat but it is effectively rarely used since the car insists on running the engine at any temp lower than 33 degrees – and then if the ambient temperature rises the car still continues to run the engine.

But the gasoline engine is also a marvel of efficiency, if not raw power output, such that combined electric and gasoline operation make the car a truly low cost vehicle to fuel, whether on short all electric trips or long vacations.

But as far as GM releasing Fuel Celled vehicles for the large truck market – I suspect that may well fall flat on its face as it has done of other manufacturers.. Toyota is not as gung-ho toward Fuel Cells as they used to be (calling them initially more important than the Prius – such a statement seems silly in retrospect).

My main problem with Fuel Cells, is that, sans Fourth Generation high-temperature Nuclear (free) generation of H2, the distribution and dispensing cost of Hydrogen is simply too high to be anywhere near competitive with Gasoline.

(As far as distribution goes – there has been some progress as shipping the hydrogen as Ammonia and then stripping off the hydrogen at the dispensing station, but this is still in the experimental stage).

But I don’t see anything around the problem of the required low-cost dispensing. Large 700 torr compressors and additional refrigeration to cool the hydrogen (mostly removal of the heat of compression) are still required adding substantially to the cost of the dispensing. Initial stations use electric equipment, but in the desire for lower cost will probably migrate over to Natural gas powered engines to perform both functions.

Comparing that with gasoline, where such a tiny amount of electricity is used to refill an ICE or PHEV – gov’t subsidies will be necessary to make the H2 stations fly at all. It would be one thing if the gasoline stations that exist weren’t there to provide competition, but seeing as they ARE there the current fuel cell efforts just seem to be totally impractical for at least the next decade.

No he isn’t. I have a Volt and a Ford C-Max Energi (in two different places), first American cars in over 50 years. I’m retired and have a need for shorter term normal driving, hence normally in electric only mode, and the ICE serves for occasional longer distance driving. I have decided that, perhaps with the exception of Tesla, the electric infrastructure isn’t yet in place. So, my has engine allows for convenient long distrance trips while most of my mileage will be in electric mode. That seems to make eminent sense to me. PHEVs can be excellent bridging vehicles to an all electric future. Wish everyone would stop carping about who is the electric purist and who isn’t.

“Primarily driven by the ICE is an outright lie. Why are such a desperate effort to misrepresent?”

Over at http://www.voltstats.net, you can see actual statistics — not just baseless assertions, like you are posting — from 3441 Volt drivers, showing that ~66% of Volt miles are powered by electricity rather than gasoline.

The Volt has an electric range between about 35 and 52 miles, depending on the year. Yet here you are, claiming that the Prius Prime, with its much smaller ~25 mile electric range, is “primarily” powered by electricity rather than gasoline. Quite obviously, on average that’s not true.

So, John, are you a clueless fool who actually believes the B.S. you’re posting? Or are you just a lying troll who knows perfectly well that what you’re saying isn’t true, and accusing people posting Truths of being liars?

Either way, you certainly are not contributing anything to the discussion here worth reading.

“Prime delivers a solid 25 miles of EV driving. I’ve been enjoying low 30’s for range all throughout the summer, without the ICE starting.”

116 MPG average for me over the past 9,000 miles of driving my Prime, which includes a 1700-mile vacation mostly at 80 mph without recharging. Other owners are reporting similar overall real-world results.

How is “primarily” evaluated without taking results into consideration? Simply basing assessment on KWH capacity is arbitrary and just an argument of semantics. What purpose does that serve?

You can’t look at your own numbers and extend them to the country John. If you’re describing whether a car is a good fit for “general America” then you need to look at the statistics for all Americans.

Just because I can bike to work and not use gas, doesn’t mean I should tell 100% of America to ditch their cars for bicycles.

The Volt design gives 90% of Americans gas free driving for all of their commutes.

The original Volt design gave 75% of Americans gas free driving for all of their commutes.

The Prius Prime is less than that, more like 50% or lower, and that’s if you are okay with very anemic acceleration in EV mode onto highways or limiting your top speed to avoid engine use.

These are all important points and key differentiators that people should consider when test driving a vehicle with a plug.

“Mainstream consumers don’t place anywhere near the emphasis on power as portrayed here. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with enthusiast interest. But clearly, it isn’t a purchase priority for the masses.”

Please cite that, because whenever I get outside the enthusiast crowd, they want to avoid hybrids and EVs because they think the performance is limited.

But to take a step back, if the power in the Volt is better, and the EV range is better, why get a Prime? A bit more cargo space is about all the Prime has over the Volt.

You reference how you get more range than the Prime is rated for, but so do many, many people on the Volt. 53 miles EPA rated, many people get 60, 70 miles. Some have even reported well over 80 miles when they hypermile.

That’s a substantial difference. So you’re right that it’s not just about the kWh of the battery, it’s about performance, handling, etc.

A Volt can give you gas-free driving until the battery is empty, but for many, a Prius Prime cannot, thanks to its inherent drivetrain limitations.

A Prime is still better than a vehicle without a plug for sure, but most people “in the know” would go for a Volt over a Prime, hands-down. And for those wanting all-electric, the Chevrolet Bolt EV has the most range, and even better acceleration, with a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds. Yikes!

You say you have averaged 116MPG over 9000 miles, which means you have used 77.59 gallons. At the Prime’s EPA-rated 54MPG, that is 4189.66mi, which puts you at 53.45% EV miles. You are, indeed, “primarily” driven by EV… barely.

However, you did mention a 1700mi trip on gas. Even if we back those ~31.48gal and 1700mi out of the equation, you’re looking at 46.10gal over 7300mi, for a net of 158.34MPG and 65.90% EV. In other words, even if we cherry pick your data, we get an EV% lower than the total Volt fleet (including Gen1 and Gen2) over the last 7 years.

Now let’s compare that to my 2017 Volt. I’m currently sitting at 16460.33 EV miles out of 17264 total – 95% EV at 842.05 MPG (20.05gal used). Even if we add in a 1700mi trip at my real-world gas MPG of 39.2 (so, 43.37gal), I’d still be at 86.8% EV miles.

The Prime and the (current) Volt are not comparable in electric capability.

Also, keep in mind how ICE usage has been used to mislead about design. Clearly, you did not take into account that extensive history.

Instead, only the definition based solely upon consumption percentage was considered. Think about that next time before posting.

In the past, the indication of “primary” was whether or not the engine was depended upon for heavy demand. If the engine ever started, the vehicle was labeled as ICE primary. Whether you agree with that or not won’t change the fact that it was labeled that way. Period.

I forgive you for the outlash, but ask for that consideration. The past is what it is, like it or not. Now, things are changing and assumptions are not acceptable.

John, it seems the comparison with the Volt and Prius Prime can’t be helped, so if you drive a Prime as an owner, make a buddy of a New 2017 Volt owner, and try a trade: his car swapped for your car!

Compare notes – do a week long commute, take a Weekend Trip – to a specific or same place, and that at least 300 miles from home, and then get back to us with your thoughts! Then repeat again, in your own Prime, and update us!

Start a Blog of your own to put the full story in – then share the link here!

He is the biggest Prius fanboi known on the internet. I wonder if he is paid by Toyota because he post the same thing in just about every EV related sites. He won’t ever touch or look at anything but a Prius.

+1 GM has always been serious about EV and is, from an engineering POV, the best non-Tesla EV platform. I am extremely impressed with my Volt, and impressed with the Bolt I drove. Proper thermal management, excellent performance. Solid product.

It’s just that GM has a responsibility to its shareholders to deliver profits. So it has had to be deliberately cautious in how it rolls out its products. Tesla could draw on a seemingly infinite amount of cash from investors. GM must remain profitable.

GM like all manufacturers except Tesla is limited because they have dealerships to satisfy.
It is clear that EVs will have better reliability which means the service dept won’t be a profit center for dealerships and EVs will last longer than ICE vehicles, leading to longer intervals between vehicle replacements.
They can choose to hold back this electric transition until someone else starts eating into their market share and that is when we will see a switch to EVs.

I think the new LG plant in Michigan which is going to make essentially the entire drivetrain plus batteries for Chevy’s EVs is going to drive down GM’s price point for profitability to a level where It makes sense for GM to ramp it up.

Look, people who think it’s just reluctance or political intrigue that is holding back mass EV production at a low price point need to do their own research on EV component prices. Look at companies like EVWest, etc. that sell EV conversion components — motors, battery packs, chargers, controllers, etc. Then add it all up. Even taking 30-50% off of those retail prices, one will see why EV production is still very niche and limited despite Tesla’s grandiose claims. It is bloody expensive and mostly because the battery supplies still are not there.

Tesla might be able to fix this for themselves, but I am skeptical. This is going to take years to resolve.

“It’s just that GM has a responsibility to its shareholders to deliver profits. So it has had to be deliberately cautious in how it rolls out its products. Tesla could draw on a seemingly infinite amount of cash from investors. GM must remain profitable.”

I think that you have a valid point.
But here where vision should come into play and therefore to be used to convince shareholders to take a temporary hit for the grater medium and long-term good.
I hope that they’ll do that someday

Yeah, nope, at least not with a battery pack larger than a couple kWh.

I personally wouldn’t mind paying more though. I love my Volt, and wouldn’t mind paying good money for a Voltec Equinox with a 30kwh battery pack, good clearance, AWD, and can tow 1500-2000lbs. A vehicle in those specs is worth it to me.

Regarding these “city only” vehicles. Was just in China last week in a “city” with 32 million people. That’s a LOT of city-only EVs. Granted most live in apt buildings, but countries like China could build out an EV charging infrastructure in no time….like months, not years.

I’m sure most of these GM EVs are going to be developed for the China market, but imagine the experience GM is going to have in designing/building millions of EVs in just a few short years.

When the US market is ready for EVs, GM is going to have plenty of choices.

I was saying that they must be counting some vehicles twice by counting them as two cars when really they are one just sold into two markets. Like how the Volt is sold as a Velite in China. Or I guess the Bolt/Ampera-e.

Announcing “fool cell” cars shows me that they are not serious about this. Sounds much like the German auto makers promising dozens of new electric cars in the far future, the promised land that they intend to never come true. The message is “keep buying our ICE cars.” No, we don’t. Especially not GM that killed the electric car. I want an electric car now and not in 20XX. They could be much more ahead than Tesla. They failed to do their job in the past decades. I’m not going to honor that.

They might have to reconfigure it into a body style that sells better (psuedo-utility vehicle) but I think the “EV for the person who isn’t sure they can deal with an EV” is still a valid market for quite some time. You won’t see rapid pure EV adoption in the Dakotas, Oklahoma, Missouri for quite some time. I think as coastal areas move more toward EVs sales in the interior states will move through hybrids to plug-in hybrids like a Volt.

The Volt isn’t the “EV for the person who isn’t sure they can deal with an EV” — in many markets it’s the only practical EVish thing available unless you want to buy a Model S and remortgage your home or never retire.

Around here (Ontario) here’s your options: Leaf with its crappy range and bad thermal management (and batery life issues), Model S/X for insane amounts of money, Bolt which is waitlisted for at least a year, Model 3 which is waitlisted for even longer, eGolf which is waitlisted for who knows how long… well, that’s about it.

So in that context the Volt makes a hell of a lot of sense. You can actually walk into a dealer and buy them. They are an excellent car. 90% of the time it’s an EV experience, and an excellent one at that, with great acceleration and efficiency.

The fact that there is an ICE in there is just icing for me to get me through long roadtrips or days when there’s no free spots on the chargers at work.

Not if you are commuting from the car-centric suburbs. You want at least 1 kWh to match the first gen EVs for range. And 3 kWh will match our Bolt. 🙂

I just read that the Tesla Superchargers will charge down to 50 volts. This was supposed to be the standard for CHADEMO, but all the manufacturers, except Aerovironment, cheated to save money…basically saying to hell with electric motorcycles, bikes, etc. I hope Tesla eventually opens up their network to anybody willing to pay for the electricity. I could run my cargo bike WOT for 100 miles at 25 mph average, recharge in under an hour, and ride back that 100 miles. Much more fun than doing the whole 200 at 18 mph average on one charge.

Jay Cole,
How do you know that when GM says “all-electric vehicles” and “all-electric future” that it isn’t “a clever way of lumping” what it calls “fuel cell electrics” in with what it calls “battery electrics” under its so called “two-pronged approach to electrification”?

GM’s press release says:
“Given customers’ various needs, getting to a zero emissions future will require more than just battery electric technology. It will require a two-pronged approach to electrification — battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric depending on the unique requirements.”

This statement makes it sound like GM considers both “battery electric” cars and “fuel electric” cars to be “all-electric vehicles”. That’s my take on their press release.

Please go take a remedial grammar class. It’s “you’re still,” not “your still.” Your repeated use of bad grammar makes you look dumb, very dumb. See the first paragraph of this comment for an example of the proper use of “you’re” and “your.” If you still don’t understand, click on the link below.

2 foot longer Bolt with 30+ cubic feet behind the 2nd row please. Other than the list price (which along with sales prices will come down once Model 3 gets delivered in volume) the lack of cargo space behind the 2nd row is the only thing preventing the Bolt from replacing our ICE RAV4 in 2018/2019.
I do like that GM is being very specific about the time frame for 2 new BEVs. One of them is the Buick Bolt but perspiring minds want to know what the 2nd is.

Notice how the “at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023” follows the GM reputation for ambiguous statements?

It’s so vague, interpretation will be all over the place. That’s what GM did countless times in the past. It generates hype without obligation. No actual quantitative measures are provided with respect to production. There’s an obvious absence of detail. People easily fall into the trap anyway. As a result, the same old rhetoric starts up, yet again. And sure enough, that’s exactly what we are seeing.

Watch how dealers react. Will the potential for greater variety help with their lack of interest shown for Volt and Bolt? If so, when and how?

2 new BEVs in 18 months is very specific, not ambiguous. And the tarp over the vehicles in the photo shows the variety of cars coming. City cars, sports cars, Crossovers…

As far as production numbers go, why would they discuss that before announcing the cars themselves! But expect an increase in production for 2018 and 2019 to get their moneys worth on the tax rebates.

GM and LG already stated they are pleased with Bolt sales. More investment is coming now because the tech is mature, the range is long, and the price is falling.

Some dealers do not get it. Don’t buy from those dealers. My Texas dealer was VERY enthusiastic. They have dozens of EVs and Hybrids in stock. And an entire building dedicated to electric cars. The dealers that get it will be rewarded. Those that don’t will fall in line more slowly.

That tells us virtually nothing of intent. It follows the pattern of vague announcements to buy time… something that is a double-standard in any regard if not acknowledged.

Notice how those attempting to turn the discussion to Toyota avoid mentioning the detail Toyota did actually provide?

In the end, it boils down to the argument about leadership. Some firmly believed it was all about breaking new ground, rather than getting ordinary people to change. Now, they’re discovering the ground is already broken and the work to appeal to mainstream consumers is a much bigger effort than they imagined.

You are thinking of VW, Honda, Volvo etc… who make big announcements about hybrids and EVs and show off a bunch of concepts but don’t actually do much. But at least they have a few.

For Plug-Ins, GM generally shows a concept and releases it. Volt, Bolt, ELR, Velite… all concepts that went to production. Built from the ground up as Plug-ins. That doesn’t even count their conversion vehicles like the Spark and CT6.

The recent GM PHEV Crossover shown off this year gives a clue that crossovers will be coming soon. Probably as the Cadillac XT4 first but it is certain to have at least a Chevy variant.

As for Toyota, they wisely led the way with Hybrids when no one else was and Ford followed them in that direction. GM and Nissan decided to go the plug-in route rather than the hybrid route.

In the end, it is the EV route that will win out, but Hybrids will continue to be a big part of the equation. But on the plug-in front they are behind the EV leaders at Tesla, GM, Nissan and BMW.

So Ford and Toyota need to continue improving their hybrid tech, but also expand their plug-in offerings.

It’s not completely specific. Companies always leave some wiggle room. This is a more tight statement than other companies “we will electrify our fleets” or Toyota’s that they’ll offer some sort of hybrid/alternative drivetrain option on all their models.

Toyota has a more milquetoast announcement. They have a more milquetoast PHEV and they have no EV at all. Heck, their last EV was outsourced. They’ve got the Mirai, which they have sold about 40 of or something.

Ironically, some of what innovator’s dilemma highlights is why you and I have been clashing.

My focus is entirely about the masses, those mainstream consumers are who the first-generation plug-in offerings were not able to reach. I couldn’t care less what enthusiasts have to say at this stage about the past. It’s all about looking forward to grow the market. A significant increase of sales quickly is essential. That requires change.

Those potential buyers have very different purchase priorities. Some of what had been a compelling draw to early-adopters may have little to no impact for this new audience. The failure to appeal the same way is harsh reality to deal with. Unexpected new problems emerge as a result and former strong players end up struggling to adapt.

Think about how welcome a disruptive technology is when it first enters the market. Those willing to embrace it readily accept change. That most definitely isn’t how you’d describe an ordinary customer shopping for a replacement vehicle. Somehow, the new technology must be made available in an entirely different manner than it had been introduced.

Are you ready to take on this next stage, willing to accept an approach necessary to rollout on the grand scale with little reward in return? Successful ubiquitous implementation is a thankless job. Few will recognize how much was truly accomplished, simply dismissing it as an “obvious” next step… even though you know that is anything but the true situation.

Since they are defining the argument that way, I fear that most of the ” EV’s ” that will be released in the next 4 years will be Hydrogen Powered.

And then, few will buy them since the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing costs (as I’ve detailed in an above comment) will result in there being few takers, as the challenges to home-produced hydrogen are much more daunting than even CNG was – and Home CNG is currently a big fat failure. There was more available 15 years ago than there is now. Even the fictional Columbo detective series opined that Natural GAS cars were Just around the Corner (42 years ago) if they could just figure out a way to keep the pilot light from blowing out!

Now me, I’ve always considered CNG cars more or less a ‘plug in car’, since you could buy a PHILL garage compressor (unfortunately, this cheapie, unreliable compressor cost around $6,000 and didn’t last long at all when run on the 60 HZ in North America, as well as the 3,600 PSI required – as opposed to the 3,000 PSI, 50 HZ operation in Europe, where the slower (5/6 ths) speed and lower (3000/3600 ) pressure kept the units running much longer), thereby charging at home overnight.

All the promises of low cost GE and Whirlpool low cost ($500) hydraulic home compression turned out to be just vapor-ware that will apparently not come to pass anytime soon.

Such seems even more so with Hydrogen powered vehicles at this point. But if the powers that be are DETERMINED to make this work then they will sell, even if they have to force them down customer’s throats.

But long range vehicles must wait for a technology breakthrough, similar to what is happening with CNG, LNG, and now ANG (Adaptive Natural Gas) systems that lower the pressure required to around 900 PSI (1/4 the current 3,600 PSI) by using activated carbon storage tanks for the methane, and might bring back Natural Gas powered vehicles, since the tanks can be made in more shapes, and the home compressors made much more reliable and less power robbing.

er… (ANG) is either called Adaptive Natural Gas, due to its lower pressure and more convenient holding tank characteristics (500-900 PSI required rather than 3,600 PSI), or possibly more properly called Adsorbed Natural Gas since the total weight of the gas is Adsorbed by the Activated Carbon storage tanks and makes possible true 300-400 mile range large vehicles, simply not possible with 3,600 PSI with Normal CNG since the tanks can only be a traditional shape (due to the huge surface area of the tanks and the high resultant total explosion risk).